About your Search

20121108
20121116
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
be helpful. >> mr. flores. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary panetta and secretary shinseki for being here and also psychiatry panetta for protecting the dollar for those that have earned it. my question is a little more theoretical, and what promise this is the claims processing time at the waco claims regional center in texas, which is the worst in the country when it comes to at adjudicating disability claims. what can we do if the ids doesn't work. what are you thinking in terms of a new paradigm to fix this issue and both of you can answer or either one of you, but it seems to me like we've got cultural issues that cannot be fixed by having new systems. so how do you make -- you are doing your best to get the systems right but what are we doing to fix the culture so that we do what we promised our military men and women and veteran's what we would do in terms of providing benefits for their service. it just seems to me like we spend all of our systems we are not spending the time of culture so can you help me with that? and let me interrupt before you answer. one other thing. you
defense secretary leon panetta. this is 90 minutes. >> chairman mckeon, chairman miller, ranking member smith and ranking member filner, dear former colleagues of mine, appreciate the opportunity to be here, and i also want to pay my respects to the members of both committees. this is a i unique event. it's an important event, and first and foremost, i want to thank all of the members of both the armed services and veterans committee for the support that you provide the department of defense, our men and women in uniform and our veterans. you -- we could simply not do the work that needs to be done in protecting this country and in serving those that are warriors and their families. we just could not do it without the partnership that we have with all of you. and for that reason, let me just express my personal appreciation to all of you for your dedication and for your commitment to those areas. i also want to thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning alongside secretary shinseki. he is a great friend, a great public servant, great military leader and a great friend to me an
this or that is negligent, it is irresponsible, and god forbid if we have that major pearl harbor that secretary panetta referred to. so i urge my colleagues to pass this bill. i thank the chair for the extra extra time. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: senator grassley who is next has been kind enough to give me 30 to that 45 seconds. i appreciate that. mr. president, july and august when the cosponsors of both the underlying bill, the lieberman-collins bill and the secure i.t. bill which i am a cosponsor of plet meth regularly and i was hopeful we could resolve the significant differences between these two bills. unfortunately, we did not reach an agreement even though we had been promised an open amendment process on this underlying billing bill, the majority leader has once again filled the tree and filed for cloture. i voted against cloture in august and, unfortunately, nothing has changed since then. so i'm compelled to do the same thing today. we all understand the serious threat that is facing our country from cyber atta
questions. there will be people in the intel committee that will not be able to ask secretary panetta, general ha*pl and others about the -- general hamm and others about the d.o.d. piece. the best thing for the senate to do, i think, is to have a bipartisan select committee where you combine the resources of all three of the committees who have jurisdiction over different pieces and create a professional approach to solving the problem. it will be run by our democratic colleagues because they're in charge of the body. it should be. there have been times in the past, iran-contra and other examples of where committees combine their resources to make sure that they full lip understand what was being said. if you stovepipe this and one committee goes one way and the other committee goes another way we're not going to get the complete picture of what happened in benghazi. that's what we're asking, is that the majority leader and minority leader create a select committee of the three kw-ts that have primary -- committees that have primary jurisdiction over each moving part so we can get to
of the administration his been through all these awards. 1990 and in the clinton administration and that's leon panetta who is now on defense, but really understands the budget deeply in all parts. so could be another one to really help. >> and another member of congress. but some of the problems the obama administrations have. to use a term not in the derogatory sense because it came to me from the democrat. he said the president was a drive-by senator. he was in a real sender coming as a drive by by senator. came long after pic pick up his paycheck and then became president. tonight it was in the house long enough to understand. biden for 36 years and they did not have a congressional relation to have the kind of institutional memory. now they be forced to get some institutional memory by all of the scar tissue they've acquired over the last little while. >> great. i like to go to the audience question now. >> hi, thanks so much for a great presentation. wondered how hurricane sandy and the possible need for fema to get emergency supplemental aid will impact on the lame-duck and if you could talk a l
, and have some interaction with you. yes. >> question for mr. panetta. my understand was that actually obama has not reduced the core pentagon budget, but i think your chart implies that he has been an unassuming that when you said 5% reduction, you including all of the savings from hopefully us getting out of afghanistan. but even when obama presented his budget, he said this is going to be, this is actually an increase in the core pentagon budget for the next 10 years. so am i misunderstanding something, or is that correct? >> a little bit. the reduction i talked about, 5% in is reduction in real terms. if you actually look at the spending in current dollars, and don't make any correction for inflation, from 2009 to 2010, it's been pretty much flat in terms of current dollars. when you take account of inflation, the base budget, has only declined by 5%. but the war budgets have declined dramatically. so actually at one point we have budgets that were in the range of come in today's dollars, $717 billion a year for national defense, including war, and now what we're looking at is something
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)